A Vision for the Future of Structural Engineering Oct 16 2013(2)

8/21/2019 A Vision for the Future of Structural Engineering Oct 16 2013(2)

1/46

A Vision for the Futureof Structural Engineering

and Structural Engineers:

A case for change

A Board of Governors

Task Committee Paper

October 16, 2013


2/46

SEI Vision for the Future October 16, 2013

2

Table of Contents

PART IIntroduction and Goal ....................................................................................................... 3

PART II The Challenges Going Forward......................................................................................... 7

PART IIIVision of the Future ....................................................................................................... 12

PART IV Bridging the Gap ........................................................................................................... 17

PART VRecommendations for SEI Board of Governors Action .................................................. 32

APPENDIX A - 2013 Firm Leader Survey ........................................................................................ 35

APPENDIX B - 2013 Design and Construction Leader One-on-One Interviews ............................. 41


3/46


3

PART I - Introduction and Goal

BACKGROUND

The Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is a

unique and vibrant community of more than 20,000 members. The mission of SEI is to advance

and serve the structural engineering profession. To that end, the SEI Board of Governors (the

Board) believes that serving the profession includes stewardship of its futureestablishing a

vision and acting upon that vision to ensure the health and vitality of the profession through

carefully selected strategic initiatives.

The path to the future of the structural engineering profession includes defining the vision for

the future, understanding the current practices and challenges, and identifying the way forward

to bridge the gap.

THE 2008 SEI VISION STATEMENT

In 2008, the Board met and put forth the following strategic vision for the profession 25 years

into the future:

In 2033, the Structural Engineering profession will be:

A unique, fully engaged profession with a strong identity; Recognized for the contribution the profession makes to

public safety and risk management, economic and sustainable use of resources, the use of innovative technologies, and the creation of inspiring structures;

Stewards of the built environment; and Attractive to the best and brightest.

At that time, the goal was to envision the desired characteristics for the structural engineering

profession at large. The stated vision statement represented the long view of 25 years into the

future. Three years after it met to establish the above statement, the Board met again to build

upon the strategic vision of 2008 and specifically to identify topics and strategic issues that it

would like to consider for action.

That effort produced the following four main strategic areas within the broad purview of The

Future Structural Engineer, which constitute high-priority initiatives for the Board:


4/46


4

(1) Expectations and Role of the Future Structural Engineer

Strategic Issue: The tools available to structural engineers are rapidly replacingworkforce with automation in many tasks traditionally done by structural engineers.

This evolution presents an opportunity, if not a mandate, to transform structuralengineering education, training, and practice in ways that will foster an enduring

and creative profession.

Desired Outcome: Explore and define what the structural engineering professionlooks like for the next generation of structural engineers, including the path for

education, practical knowledge gain, and technology applications that will and

should exist throughout a career.

(2) Structural Engineer Licensing

Strategic Issue: Increases in complexity of structural design responsibility, includingadvances in building codes and standards, design aids and tools such as computer

programs, project delivery methods, and construction materials, could undermine

the professions ability to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public from

unqualified and inexperienced professionals designing inadequate structures.

Desired Outcomes: Enact legislation for structural engineering licensurerequirements in all jurisdictions by creating a plan for working proactively with local

engineers, stakeholders, and engineering organizations, and developing resources

such as statistical data, white papers, and case studies to support the efforts of local

structural engineers.

(3) Continuing Education

Strategic Issue: Lack of a governing body and inconsistencies in continuing educationofferings and mandatory requirements dilute the benefits of continuing education

for practicing structural engineers.

Desired Outcome: Outline a comprehensive approach to education after graduation,including expectations for mentoring and formal courses.

(4) International Links and Globalization

Strategic Issue:Advances in technology and increasingly interdependent economieshave changed the way structural engineers deliver their services; the rate of change

is accelerating, and SEI needs to develop a proactive approach to educate, train andaccredit structural engineers in this changing global environment.

Desired Outcomes: Establish an international and diverse working group to developa path towards global structural engineering accreditation standards. Develop a

series of short white papers on the opportunities and constraints for structural

engineering projects in emerging markets, as well as opportunities for American

structural engineers pursuing work internationally. Provide leadership for the


5/46


5

development of a strong structural engineering community in Africa.

Maintain/strengthen the SEI/ASCE brand name internationally.

The Board recognized that the strategic areas are interrelated; all of them demanding a clear

picture of the qualifications future structural engineers will need to function effectively in avibrant profession. To investigate those qualifications, the Board appointed a Task Committee to

study changes impacting the structural engineering profession, and to provide background and

present ideas for change, as well as recommendations for action by the Board.

The members of the Task Committee on the Qualifications of Future Structural Engineers(the

Task Committee), and the authors of this paper, are as follows:

Stan Caldwell, P.E., Stan R. Caldwell, P.E., SECB

Donald Dusenberry, P.E., Task Committee Chair, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.

Jennifer Goupil, P.E., Structural Engineering Institute of ASCE

Cherylyn Henry, P.E., T.Y. Lin International GroupKeith Hjelmstad, Ph.D., Arizona State University

John Hooper, S.E., Magnusson Klemencic Associates

Jim Malley, S.E., Degenkolb Engineers

The Task Committee convened its first meeting at the 2012 Structures Congress in Chicago, IL on

March 29, 2012. It met in person five additional times and conducted five conference call

meetings. In addition, the Task Committee conducted two industry surveys.

The Firm Leader Survey was open to structural engineering firm leaders, and was designed to

test hypotheses of some of the current practices and assumptions about the following topics:

internships, mentoring/coaching, training, professional registration exams and organization

membership, current academic training, post-academic training, and hiring trends, as well as

expectations for change in industry in the next 10-30 years.

This was an online survey that the Task Committee developed and deployed to 2,258 members

of SEI who self-identified as president, owner, vice-president, director, principal, chief engineer,

or similar. Additionally, NCSEA deployed the survey invitation to 7,807 members who self-

identified as the above categories as well as project manager, project engineer, and senior

structural engineer. In total, 10,065 members were invited to participate and the survey

received a total of 352 completed responses, which is a 3.5% response rate.

Our interpretation of the results of this survey is in Appendix A to this paper.

The Design and Construction Leader One-on-One Interviews surveyed design and construction

industry leaders from all regions of the United States to obtain their vision of the future of the

overall design and construction industry as well as the future of the structural engineering

profession.


6/46


6

The Task Committee developed the list of potential interviewees to represent leaders from

structural engineering and architecture, as well as owners, developers, contractors, industry

representatives, and a municipal building official. In all, the Task Committee interviewed thirty-

three individuals over a two-month period. The interviews were generally conducted by

telephone after the Task Committee provided the interviewees with a brief summary of the Task

Committees efforts along with a list of interview questions.

Our interpretation of the results of this survey is in Appendix B to this paper.

The Task Committee used its research into trends impacting the profession, interview results,

and its own deliberations to develop a picture of qualifications structural engineers of the future

will need in order to respond to changes that are happening now and will continue in the future.

The Task Committee developed this picture into the recommendations contained herein for

action by the Board.


7/46


7

PART II - The Challenges Going Forward

Structural engineering has enjoyed a brilliant and iconic past. Signature bridges, high-rise

buildings, and long-span roofs over sports facilities stand as testaments to the work of structural

engineers. However, much of the work of structural engineers is hidden by faade or otherwise

exists so commonly in our experience that we do not notice it.

As a mature profession, we have been subject to the subtle and not-so-subtle forces that have

shaped the nature of the work we do and the work we aspire to do. The profession of structural

engineering, like many others, has endured extraordinary challenges in recent years, both within

the United States and world-wide. That pressure has served to expose some of the

vulnerabilities of the profession and to open a new willingness to imagine the future. Today we

see ourselves in a shrinking space because many of the technical tasks that a structural engineer

used to do are now being done automatically by computers or completed overseas. We have

further limited the space by developing standards and codes that attempt to define the design

parameters of upwards of 95% of the structures being built today. Some engineers have

developed niche specialties in areas outside the scope of prescriptive standards and codes, such

as performance-based design, multi-hazard design, and performance monitoring. They will enjoy

bright futures if they are able to maintain cutting-edge skills that continue to be in demand.

Other niche specialties will emerge as technology evolves.

Compounding the shrinking space, the educational system has not changed much in the past

several decades and, therefore, new graduates entering the profession today are not ideally

prepared. Additionally, there is palpable concern that the best and brightest young people are

becoming less interested in structural engineering as a career.

As a result of the path taken thus far, the structural engineering profession currently faces many

challenges in areas such as education, licensure, technology, globalization, innovation, and

leadership. Those challenges are also avenues of great opportunity. The current state in each of

these areas is outlined below as a preamble to the discussion of how we may move forward.

Education:Undergraduate education of engineers has evolved under a tension created by an

increasing body of knowledge pulling against a steady drive to grant undergraduate degrees in

all academic majors within a period of only four years. This evolution has taken place while the

profession has become detached from the formal educational process. Nearly two-thirds of

senior structural engineers have no knowledge of any academic programs beyond their own

personal experience.1This disconnect is further exacerbated by the primacy of the research

mission at top universities that has distanced the research frontier from mainstream

professional practice and has left undergraduate curricula largely unchanged for decades. The

12013 Firm Leader Survey Summary, Appendix A


8/46


8

drive to reduce degree requirements has been met more with resistance than with innovation;

the process of curricular change has been more like chiseling than reinvention.

The accreditation process has been a double-edged sword for engineering, but has seen some

major improvements over the past decade through outcomes-based accreditation. ABET has

become a driving force for curricular change and is likely the sole reason that any educational

breadth, or focus on soft skills, is present in engineering education today. The relationship

between the top engineering research universities and ABET has been strained. Consequently,

many curricular changes are implemented through forces or fears associated with losing

accreditation and, as such, are often not embraced by the faculty that must implement them.

Structural engineering as an identifiable profession suffers from there being few formal

programs at either the undergraduate or graduate level with the name Structural Engineering2.

Structural engineering is traditionally a subset of civil engineering. Many civil engineering

graduate programs have identifiable structural engineering focus areas at the masters level.The requisite level of education in structural engineering has long been dictated by market

demand. Structural engineering firms with more than 10 employees tend to hire primarily at the

masters degree level, although the bachelors degree continues to be a hiring target for very

small firms (fewer than 10 employees) and very large firms (greater than 500 employees)3.

With all of the factors taken together, there is evidence that the entry level of education for a

structural engineer may rest more comfortably in the neighborhood of six years rather than

four. Because other areas of engineering are not likely to abandon the notion of a four-year

degree to enter the profession, structural engineering has the opportunity to pioneer a

professional degree program.

Education of structural engineers in the workplace is limited.4Most structural engineering

consulting firms do not have internship programs, and those that do focus on recruiting rather

than training. Very few firms have formal mentoring programs. While younger engineers clearly

want more mentoring, their leaders generally have little interest in providing it. Most firms do

offer training, especially in-house training, but this is focused almost entirely on technical skills

related to production of the firms work. Very few firms offer training in soft skills like business,

communications, and leadership.

Licensure:Licensure is a mechanism used by many professions to regulate membership and the

domain of action of the profession. Licensure is the spur into the legal system that provides a

2The University of California at San Diego is the only known ABET-accredited undergraduate structural engineering program in the

United States, and the program earned its ABET accreditation using the ABET General Criteria. ABET criteria for a structural

engineering program does not currently exist, however an SEI Task Committee is exploring the validity of such criteria at the

masters degree level only.32013 Firm Leader Survey Summary, Appendix A

4ibid


9/46


9

basis for regulation of the industry. Of those who participate in the profession of structural

engineering, most are licensed generically as professional engineers, rather than as structural

engineers. Only a few states currently offer structural engineering licensure that restricts the

practice or title of structural engineering to those who are qualified. In the remaining states,

every licensed professional engineer is generally free to practice structural engineering if they

themselves feel that they are competent to do so. In a world where structural engineering is

clearly not a part-time profession, this does not protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

Even for licensed structural engineers, the requirements for licensure continue to vary

significantly from one state to another. Consequently, achieving comity to practice in another

state based upon current licensure continues to be much more difficult for structural engineers

than for other engineering disciplines.

Technology:Structural engineers have long been leaders in technological solutions to

engineering problems. In the 1970s, structural engineers were among the first professionals to

adopt computer analysis. In the 1980s, they were among the first to adopt automated design. In

the 1990s, they were among the first to transition to computerized drafting and detailing. In the

2000s, they were among the first to embrace building information modeling. Many believe that

structural engineers will soon be among the first to enter the brave new world of automated

production of construction based on electronic models rather than printed documents.

Technology has opened the door of innovation for structural engineers by enabling modeling

and design exploration unheard of in the past. Technology always holds the promise of freeing

up the human mind for more lofty thoughts, especially once routine tasks become automated.

Structural engineers can and will lead in the implementation and use of automation

technologies in the future. However, key areas need attention so that the opportunities of

technology are leveraged while recognizing that much traditional structural engineering work

will be replaced by automation. First, academic education of structural engineers needs to

evolve to better prepare for this future. Students who will leverage technology for analysis must

find a different mechanism for mastering the key concepts behind the tools used for analysis.

Second, firms need to make sure that business practices (such as cost-plus billing) do not set up

technological advancement as impediments to financial success. Finally, structural engineers

need to perpetually refine and redefine their value in the light of technology, to participate in its

advancementeither as drivers, or creators, or creative usersand to seek a natural

equilibrium between human and machine.

Globalization:While American higher education remains the envy of the world, engineers are

being educated in increasing numbers in developing nations, especially in China and India. The

existence of more engineers means there is more competition. Work that can be done remotely

and shipped electronically can be done for a lower price. Globalization did not seem like much

of a threat to structural engineers in developed nations a decade ago. Foreign engineers could

not reasonably provide local services such as timely design coordination meetings and site visits.


10/46


10

In addition, licensing boards in the United States enforced rigorous direct supervision

regulations. But the competitive landscape has simply changed worldwide. No amount of

regulation will ultimately stem the tide of entrepreneurs offering good service at a low price,

nor should it.

To lead in the global marketplace, structural engineers must differentiate themselves from

others. The best bet has always been, and will continue to be, innovation. SEI engineers, among

them some of the most engaged researchers in the world, can and should lead the way in

establishing global standards of practice, including the responsibilities of the engineer of

record. To do these things we must make a commitment to this purpose. To succeed we must

embrace the international challenges that range from differences in engineering and business

approaches, to local capabilities and resources, to cultural and linguistic contexts. To impact

competitiveness in the global market, SEI engineers must not only lead the way to the most

innovative and effective structures, we must also develop and influence international codes and

standards related to structural engineering.

Globalization also means more opportunity. As nations emerge economically they bring huge

demand for the development of infrastructure. As an example, a century ago Britains core

infrastructure was largely in place. Lacking adequate domestic opportunities, British structural

engineers successfully sought large new projects worldwide; they are still doing so. American

structural engineers face a similar situation today: Americas core infrastructure is largely in

place. There will always be a need for ongoing repair, replacement, and expansion of existing

structures. There will also continue to be many large new projects in the United States.

However, there will be more and larger projects abroad. The need for new infrastructure in

parts of the world that are undeveloped or underdeveloped will emerge as a major opportunityfor structural engineers worldwide. Structural engineers with adequate language and cultural

skills, and an understanding of indigenous construction materials and techniques, can look

forward to tremendous opportunities in places like Asia, South America, and Africa.

Innovation:Structural engineering is a high-liability professiona profession where mistakes

can result in the loss of life and property. Operating in an environment of high consequence

tends to breed conservatism. Further, we have created a prescriptive environment with our

many building and bridge codes and standards. Most engineers will elect to operate to the letter

of the prescription in such an environment. It is not surprising, then, that structural engineering

has become a profession that is very averse to risk.

We must manage this risk better to enter a more creative and innovative future. We must find a

way to curb our impulse to put our every technical thought into a code or specification. We

must find a way to return engineering judgment to the top of the list of reasons why structural

engineers are valuable and why creative people aspire to be structural engineers.


11/46


11

Leadership:A century ago, many structural engineers worked as master builders. They took

responsibility for all aspects of their projects, including planning, design, financing, construction,

and maintenance. Eventually, in part due to liability concerns, they began to shed key

responsibilities. Project management shifted to architects for buildings and to civil engineers for

bridges. Construction planning, scheduling, and execution shifted to contractors. This included

the means and methods of construction as well as jobsite safety. Today, architects expect to

manage building projects and they expect to be involved in the high-level decision making. The

same is generally true for civil engineers with respect to infrastructure projects. By contrast,

structural engineers have developed an expectation to serve as specialists who, led by others,

produce safe structural designs.

With some notable exceptions, structural engineers do not view themselves as leaders and have

not developed the skills and abilities that are characteristic of leadership. There is no route to a

future vision of the profession except through embracing leadership as a fundamental

obligation. Students need to learn it in school. Firms need to develop and promote it. And all

must practice it.

SUMMARY

This synopsis of the challenges the structural engineering profession faces with education,

licensure, technology, globalization, innovation, and leadership remind us that these important

issues play different roles in professional advancement. Education and licensure provide tools to

shape the profession. Technology and globalization represent the ever-changing landscape of

the work environment for engineers; they embody challenge and opportunity. Innovation and

leadership are the goals.

In many ways our route to the present has put us at a crossroads. Electing to continue on the

current path without change is to elect a supporting role in building the future, a shrinking

profession ever more bound by prescriptive design environments, and a future where risk

management is the province of lawyers, not engineers. No structural engineer wants that

future. At the crossroads we also have the opportunity to advance a future built on leadership

and innovation. The future will require change. Our task is to find a way to leverage the current

conditions to bridge the gap to the future.


12/46


12

PART III - Vision of the Future

After considering our assessment of the current status, the foreseeable evolution of the

profession, and the traits desired for successful structural engineers in the future, the Task

Committee identified the following features as enhanced abilities to satisfy the vision of

structural engineering in 2033 and beyond:

A unique, fully engaged profession with a strong identitywill be realized when structural

engineers:

Are viewed as an integrating factor in a project rather than a support cast; View policy, aesthetics, and finance as important details of the structural engineering

task rather than vice versa;

Are able to articulate the vision of the profession in a way that is understood, embraced,and admired by the public;

Are renowned for their curiosity and commitment to learning; Are considered as the most likely member of any group to take a leadership role;

confidence in that leadership is based upon deep understanding of the myriad issues at

stake, keen appreciation of the other disciplines involved, and well-developed

collaboration skills;

Are among the first chosen as policy leaders in matters regarding infrastructure andsustainability;

Cease the practice of using building codes and standards as the primary means tocommunicate the technical details of the profession;

Cease to view disciplines such as construction, economics, architecture, and publicpolicy as other disciplines;

Are acknowledged as experts in structures of all shapes, sizes, and scales, in addition totraditional buildings, bridges, and tunnels; and are eager to embrace the next new thing

as a structure in need of engineering; and

Reimagine how structural engineers are educated and successfully execute that newvision. The new image of engineering education is considered bold and enlightened by

educators outside of engineering and eagerly imitated by educators inside of

engineering.


13/46


13

In order to be recognized for the contribution the profession makes to public safety and risk

management, economic and sustainable use of resources, and the creation of inspiring

structures, structural engineers will need to be able to demonstrate the following:

Technical competence appropriate to the advancing state of knowledge; The ability to productively use innovative technologies from other fields andthe ability

to develop innovative technologies within the province of structural engineering,

especially but not exclusively in use of new materials, to advance the capabilities of

structural engineering;

A broad vision of infrastructure and its role in advancing the objectives of civilizedsociety; a willingness and commitment to add value to every professional conversation

on projects related to infrastructure development; and

An ability to not simply adapt to changing design environments, new technologies, andfickle economic forces, but also to leverage those changes in moving toward the future.

As stewards of the built environmentstructural engineers will develop their vision by

recognizing the following trends:

A significant part of future structural engineering work will concern rehabilitation, reuseof existing infrastructure, and sustainability (especially in the U.S. market);

New markets will be primarily outside the U.S. and new construction opportunities willincreasingly be international;

Growth will occur for specialty niche firms and beyond-code practices; and Some portion of the traditional structural engineering portfolio can, should, and will

become commoditized.

Accordingly, for the profession to beattractive to the best and brightest, thestructural

engineering profession will need to do the following:

Play an essential role in the conception, influence, and leadership in daring designsfor the built environment of the future;

Embrace and articulate a passion to address the worlds key infrastructure andenvironmental challenges with particular emphasis on sustainability;

Rely on a demonstrated broad set of interests and abilities requisite to carry out thework of structural engineering;

Become globally competitive and collaborative by fully embracing multiplelanguages and cultures:

Lead the development, implementation, and use of new technologies in solvingproblems old and new;


14/46


14

Establish a readily identifiable professional development mechanism that seamlesslyprogresses from formal education to professional employment to leadership, and

includes authentic mentoring at all levels, including added value through sharing of

experience (such as with other technologies); and

Demonstrate that structural engineers are motivated by a sincere drive to developcreative and innovative solutions to both traditional and non-traditional problems.

These attributes will lead the structural engineering profession to a successful future.

A SUCCESSFUL VISION REALIZED

When we define the vision and identify the strategic issues as well as the characteristics we seek

for successrelative to the profession as a whole, to individuals, and to structural engineering

firmshow will we know we have arrived?

When the vision is realized, the following will be true of the profession:

Structural engineering is among the top choices of educational pursuit for the best andbrightest of the next generation.

Structural engineering is known as a professional (post-baccalaureate) degree thatserves as an aspirational goal of many undergraduate majors.

Other professions routinely seek to hire structural engineering graduates because theycombine the extraordinary problem-solving abilities of engineers with the broad

knowledge and appreciation of issues that face the world.

Earning a structural engineering license is viewed as a major achievement and aspirantswould willingly rise to the challenge to earn the distinction.

High-level, critical project meetings with key decision makers will not start until thestructural engineer has arrived because no one would imagine making a decision

without this voice.

Books are written and movies are made about structural engineers or structuralengineering. Structural engineers show up on annual lists of people who made an

impact.

This assessment of the state of affairs, when viewed through the lens of the SEI Vision, leads us

to conclude that the strategic issues identified for the purposes of addressing the qualifications

of future structural engineers are as follows:

(1) Education


15/46


15

Strategic Issue: The traditional models for educating structural engineers are obsolete.The pressure to decrease time to graduation coupled with the tether to professional

outcomes is no longer able to prepare the next generations of structural engineers.

Desired Outcomes: Revolutionize how structural engineers are formally educated andthen naturalize the mechanism for academia and practice to interact and to embody

innovation and leadership in both education and practice.

(2) Technology Strategic Issue: The increased rate of development and advancement of technology has

surpassed the professions ability to leverage it. Teaching methods havebeen slow to

evolve to adequately meet the needs of a profession in which computations are routinely

done with advanced software.

Desired Outcomes: Fully leverage the computational ability of technology and developnew learning methodologies that glean wisdom and experience from its use. Drive the

technology changes needed to creatively advance structural engineering.

(3) Globalization Strategic Issue: Increases in competition for structural engineering services coming from

outside the U.S. have challenged the way that structural engineers deliver services.

Desired Outcomes: Create a demand for expertise in the world market by honing a newcapability to serve different cultures. Be the global leader in structural engineering.

(4) Innovation Strategic Issue: The development of and reliance on codes and standards that govern

structural engineering designs, as well as, the practice of risk management have stymied

innovation within our profession. This, coupled with absence of training on how to be

innovative, has stifled the development of new or existing building materials or

advancement of structural engineering in non-civil structures.

Desired Outcomes: Bold leadership will drive innovation in performance based designapproaches and push the advancement of new materials and markets.

(5) Leadership Strategic Issue: The current muted respect within the project team as well as lack of a

public identity limits the potential for increased influence of the structural engineer to

impact individual projects and society.


16/46


16

Desired Outcomes: Project stakeholders will seek input from the structural engineer forcritical decisions on technical and business matters and the structural engineer will be

viewed by society as essential for the welfare of the public.

Engineers always have had strong technical abilities. This is not likely to change. However, our

research suggests that the principal qualities that the profession needs to reinforce going

forward can be summarized in two words: innovation and leadership. Without creating new

opportunities to express our skills, and without taking charge of our future, the structural

engineering profession will fall victim to outside forces and be marginalized. The ability for the

structural engineering profession to address these strategic issues will define how the

profession will look and function in the future.


17/46


17

PART IV - Bridging the Gap

To get to a future where structural engineers are leaders and innovators we will need to move

forward with a purposeful and strategic effort. While people have different views of the future

of the profession, we tend to agree that structural engineers of the future will not be engaged in

the same technical tasks that they have been in the past. Some see the future as advancing the

technical aspect by declaring the common work, perhaps 95% of the projects we have done up

to this point, to be the work of technicians or automation, leaving the truly unusual structural

engineering tasks, perhaps the remaining 5%, as the definition of structural engineering. In this

view, structural engineers will need to be very technically ablemore than is common today.

Others see the future through the lens of master builder where the structural engineer of the

future will require more organizational and management abilities. In both futures there is

general agreement that the structural engineer should lead in more circumstances than

generally happens today and that the work that occupies the structural engineer should be

more innovative. The question is How do we get there from here?

SKILLS AND ABILITIES NEEDED TO INNOVATE AND LEAD

It is rare to voice a view of the future without hearing an echo from the past. And yet the

circumstances change and with them the motives, drives, and needs. So it is with the skills and

abilities that will be required by structural engineers in the future. A consensus is emerging that

within the broad context of what has long been valued or sought from engineers, we must shift

the emphasis to strike a new balance of technical skills and soft skills to develop engineers with

broad professional ability and broad professional commitment driven, above all, by curiosity andcreativity. What needs to change?

Technical Skills: The one constant of engineering over time is the expectation of strong technical

skills. That will continue to be true in the future, but the professional environment, the

capabilities of computers, as well as other influences, suggest that we must constantly update

our expectations on technical skill. Whereas in the past technical skill implied an ability to

calculate something by hand, in the future technical skill will almost always involve the

interpretation of a computation done by a computer. Our ability to process large amounts of

information is not merely a speedup of the old hand calculations but rather a new paradigm for

fundamental thinking about engineered systems.

Engineers of the future will be better served by a firm grasp of conceptual engineering

fundamentals than they will by recalling detailed factual knowledge (such as that which is buried

in design standards and specifications). We will redefine technical skill and we will reimagine

how we teach new engineers those skills. At present we are caught in transitionthe

computational tools are available and advancing, but most education has not evolved to a

productive pedagogy centered on those tools. We will advance on this issue not by mourning


18/46


18

the limited ability of new engineers to think in the mold of the past generation, but rather by

embracing a new kind of engineer who is trained to draw insight from the modern tools of the

trade.

The current education process is not being leveraged against current tools to provide

opportunity for intuition to develop among young structural engineers. We move forward not

by trying to recapture the methods of the past, but by reconsidering what we mean by

intuition and recasting the result in the context of current tools.

Technical ability today is defined more by a body of knowledge than it is an ability to create.

Structural engineers of the future will bend their technical skill toward innovation; they will

develop substantially different frameworks for developing intuition about structural systems;

and they will make engineering judgments on a considerably different input stream. The

education of engineers capable of bridging this gap must focus on discovery, validation,

exploration, and conceptual design rather than the small deterministic tasks that are the staplestoday. Even for those technical topics that do not change, we must reform our pedagogy to

acknowledge the vast knowledge of how people learn so that we can develop deep competence

in foundational ideas.

Soft skills:For many years the profession has said that too many engineers lack a fully-

developed set of skills outside of the technical domain. People have often tied this over-focus on

technical skill, and associated paucity of soft skills, as a key reason that structural engineers

often do not get a seat at the big table.5

The structural engineering profession of the future must welcome those who possess robust

soft skills and seek to improve the soft skills of those who do not come by those skills naturally.

These skills include the traditional communications abilitiesincluding speaking, writing, and

presentation skillsalong with a full complement of the modern soft skills related to a high

emotional intelligence quotientsuch as an engaging personality, flexibility, adaptability, self-

direction and self-control, and perseverance.

As software used by our profession increases the automation of our work, it is likely that

structural engineers relatively new to the profession will be directing a staff of technicians

running that software. To be effective in this role, structural engineers will need to develop

management skills much earlier in their careers than they do now.

5The term big table broadly refers to the place where high-level decisions are made on projects. The failure to be at the big table,

then, suggests more of a service role for structural engineersstructural engineers are told what to do and will get it done.


19/46


19

Getting to a profession with enhanced soft skills6may be a heavy lift, but it is essential. We must

first recognize that natural selection through a lens focused exclusively on math and science

ability has given us what we have today. What we seek cannot be satisfied through better

training of this traditional input stream. We must change the input to include more individuals

who possess strength in these other areas and allow those individuals to have an influence on

others through appropriate success.

In a nutshell, this is the diversity problem that has limited the engineering profession from

successfully moving to a better place. First, we must realize the need for diverse abilities in our

profession. Second, we need to honestly embrace a solution that includes people who might list

math and science second or third on their list of passions. Third, we need to adjust the

educational system (look to the right; look to the left) to assure that these newcomers are

not immediately eliminated from the pipeline through a sense of unwelcome or a sense of

boredom with what we do. Finally, we need to adjust the mindset of the workplace to embrace

a more diverse workforce. Our focus should start with reforms of the educational system

because if these new souls do not show up in the pipeline they will never show up in the firm.

Broad professional ability: We generally acknowledge the need for broad professional ability in

the next generation of structural engineers, but that means different things to different

peoplefrom a few things one might learn in business school to a true liberal arts education.

The engineers that have these skills will be equipped to interact with everyone associated with a

project. They will have knowledge of constructability, cost estimation, finance, public policy, and

law. They will know the language of the contractor as well as the language of the lawyers and

politicians. They will have broad knowledge of other cultures, other political systems, and they

will speak multiple languages.

The structural engineer of the future will be equipped and eager to take the lead on project

teams. Structural engineers will be groomed from early in their formal education to take on

leadership roles. They will be taught, they will be encouraged, and they will be expected to lead.

Those who demonstrate these attributes today are self-ignited to get there. In the future we

must teach these skillswe know it is possible because it is done routinely outside of

engineering schools. This training may come at the expense of technical traininga compromise

that engineers have been loath to make from time immemorial. Rather than calcify the debate

over the divisions of an already small pie, we must liberate the curriculum, possibly through a

revolution of the educational model, as discussed in the next section.

6Let us distinguish between a profession with enhanced soft skills and an individual with enhanced soft skills. There is no need to

have every member of the profession able to achieve a higher ability level of soft skills. There will not be enough opportunity to

justify that. On the other hand, we need some and we need a lot more than we currently have.


20/46


20

Creativity and curiosity: Young engineers need more encouragement to be creative and better

training to help them get there. Respected educationalist KennethRobinson has said, Creativity

is more important than literacy in education today.7Albert Einstein once said, Imagination is

more important than knowledge. Today knowledge can be captured by the computer and

reproduced and transmitted at light speed. We all carry a device in our pockets that can find

information any time and almost anywhere, instantly, and have the computational power of the

largest computers available to engineers a generation ago. Ironically, in the knowledge economy

knowing facts is not an advantage; however, the ability to synthesize known facts is powerful.

In the past we placed an extraordinary emphasis on problems with exact and unique answers

some of which have complex and sophisticated paths to get there. Engineers need this skill, but

they need much more than this skill. It is not an all or nothing proposition, but rather a question

of balance. It is also a significant question of whether current engineering faculties are even

equipped to teach outside of the current canon.

Structural engineering has operated almost exclusively at the knowledge end of the spectrum.

To thrive we must move to the creative end. The future structural engineer will be driven by

curiosity and by a desire to learn new things; he will be impervious to disciplinary boundaries;

she will think of her role as creating. The future structural engineer will learn in environments

that promote creativity and will practice creatively.

BOLD NEW MECHANISMS FOR CHANGE

Our universities hold the key to changing the profession because the profession will never be

better than the people that are flowing into it and all of those people get there through the

university. But universities do not hold the only key. The practice owns the power to veto any

change promoted by the universities or to encourage or discourage any person the university

allows to get through. The only route to change the profession lies in collaboration between the

educational sector and the practice sector.

Out beyond the details, the singular good ideas, and pet peeves, there has emerged the notion

that the future of structural engineering is about two basic things: Innovation and leadership.

Further, it is evident that our recommendations could be organized in two natural strands: (1)

Innovation and leadership in structural engineering practice and (2) education for innovation

and leadership needed to support the new vision.

We need bold new mechanisms to get to the future vision. The following paragraphs describe

some mechanisms and some ideas that might help us to make tangible progress toward the

future.

7Out of our Minds: Learning to be creative, Kenneth Robinson, 2001


21/46


21

INNOVATION AND LEADERSHIP IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING PRACTICE

We want a profession for the future built to innovate and lead. The profession is the sum total

of what we, as the participants in that profession, actually do. As we explored the current state

of the profession and the forces that are bearing down on it, we realized that our past has been

a journey that has limited opportunity for innovation and leadership in many waysfrom

creating design standards and specifications that have discouraged creativity to the educational

pipeline that is set up to select people at the purely technical end of the spectrum. To create a

vibrant future we must act to change the current mechanisms. The future of the profession

must be framed around a new set of propositions.

The opportunities for change in practice come from a variety of sources; some are listed below.

Promote performance based design. The drive to develop codes and specifications has led to

the outcome that many of the tasks previously done by structural engineers could be and havebeen automated. Adding code checks to structural analysis software was a natural evolution.

In the future we must curb our tendency to codify our design decisions and leave those

decisions in the province of qualified structural engineers. If we mandate how a structure must

perform, but leave freedom to how the engineer provides that performance, we open the

possibilities for amazing solutions to presently unsolvable problems.

One avenue for change that has emerged in recent years is the notion of performance-based

design. This design philosophy invites fundamental thought about structural performance that

returns advanced computation technology to the structural engineer as a tool rather than as a

faster and more accurate replacement. Refocusing the profession on performance-based design

would increase the importance of sound engineering judgment in the design process, rely on

better technical knowledge, require the use of more sophisticated technology in problem

solving, result in more efficient structures, and place the structural engineer in a better position

to drive technological change.

ASCE 7 seems to be moving in this direction. The 2010 edition now provides for determination

of loads following performance-based procedures8. The trend in ASCE 7 is likely to continue and

expand, and should extend to other codes and standards as well.

Champion the trend toward performance-based design.

Bring materials science into structural engineering practice. The traditional education of

structural engineers has not focused on fundamental behavior of materials. Research

breakthroughs have been sparse, and material properties that have limited our designs continue

to constrain us. Innovations in building materials have not been a driving force in the practice of

8Section 1.3.1.3 of ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures


22/46


22

structural engineering. We need to understand the materials we use better, and we need better

materials.

In the future the education and practice of structural engineering should be built around efforts

to improve the mechanical performance and sustainability of materials. We might start by

providing a better foundation in materials science for future structural engineers, but ultimately

we must embrace innovation in materials as a key part of what it means to be a structural

engineer.

Advance new structural materials.

Apply skills beyond traditional construction. When we say we engineer structures, we almost

always mean buildings, bridges, tunnels, and other civil works. By doing this, we have adopted a

very narrow view about what can constitute a structure. The principles that govern structural

engineering are applicable to all types of structuresfrom aerospace structures to packaging. Itis time that we embrace all of these activities as structural engineering and to seek out other

applications that would benefit from the professional perspective of the structural engineer.

If the problem involves managing force and motion, we can solve it. And we should.

Apply skills beyond structural engineering for traditional construction.Structural engineers

have evolved into a role that is largely technical support. In the future structural engineers need

to be a voice in the key decision processes for building projects. To be that voice we must be

conversant with all aspects of the building challenge, both through adequate education and

through active pursuit of that role as professionals.

As a first step, engineers should be better prepared in business and leadership when they enter

the profession. Further, we should embrace a more diverse set of thinkers in the practice of

structural engineering than we currently dopeople with primary strengths in areas other than

the purely technical.

If we embrace the task of solving the business risk issues associated with building infrastructure,

we can bring so much more to the table during project conception, development, design, and

construction. Structural engineers should be fully conversant on matters of financing, land use,

construction costs, constructability, and means and methods. There will be new roles for us as

delivery methods evolve, and there will always be better ways for us to contribute to the

process. The more we bring and the better we can interact with our partners in the process, the

higher we will be valued and respected, and the better will be the outcome for the project.

Play a larger role on the construction project team.


23/46


23

Lead sustainability. The world needs sustainable solutions to advance civilization. The building

and renewal of infrastructure creates an opportunity for structural engineers to lead efforts in

sustainability. If we see our role through the lens of sustainable infrastructure lifecycle then we

can see a way to both drive innovation of sustainable solutions as well as lead the project teams

to adopt them.

Future structural engineers will consider the carbon footprint of new construction, efficient use

of materials, and de-constructability. Creative reuse of existing buildings offers huge

opportunities for structural engineers to mitigate the impact of construction on the

environment. Structural engineers will play lead roles in the development and implementation

of adaptive reuse strategies for existing buildings. When we have expert understanding of

material behavior and are liberated by performance-based codes, our role in stretching the

most value from resources at the least cost to the environment will skyrocket.

Structural engineers need to embrace designing for sustainability as a consideration equal to

designing for cost efficiency.

Encourage participation in society enhancing activities. The members of a profession are

responsible for promoting the professionif not they, then who? Structural engineers of the

future will have the ability to speak and represent the profession to all segments of society and

will eagerly take up the challenge of doing so.

We build structures where people can find shelter, nourishment, employment, and transport.

We do this in support of, in the midst of, and in spite of human activity. What we do impacts

society on all levels, from providing essential services to potentially being an unbearablenuisance. We need to be cognizant of our role and our influence, and strive to make our impact

positive in all aspects. We need to do this in our professional activities of course. But we also

should do it in ways that exploit and leverage our talents for endeavors that are beyond our

daily professional responsibilities.

Engineers in general are far too sparsely represented in leadership roles in politics, philanthropy,

and volunteerism. As a group we could offer our talents and abilities to the improvement of the

quality of life of others through activities that are outside of our traditional professional role.

Benefit flowing inward would then be derived from the publicity and respect the profession

would get by the successful application of our skills to the solution of a vast array of important

problems facing society.

Lets make a positive difference.

Drive the process of technology development. Structural engineers were among the first to

embrace many of the computer innovations that are now ubiquitous in the profession.


24/46


24

Somewhere along the way structural engineers became subjects of technology more likely to

have the next innovation thrust upon them than to create the next technological innovation.

We need to return to our roots as the creators of the technology that drives our profession. The

structural engineer of the future will have a strong background in advanced technologies and

the profession will welcome those with the entrepreneurial spirit required to lead the way in

development of the technologies, and the means to manage those technologies, that will enable

the creation of the next generation of infrastructure.

We should push for the creation of design and analysis software more capable than what

currently exits. We should participate in the development of sensors and systems that help us to

monitor and diagnose structural problems before they result in catastrophe. We should develop

tools that are suited to the task of rehabilitating, retrofitting, or extending existing

infrastructure.

Where we see need we should imagine new technology.

Embrace other cultures. Globalization is a fact of the future. We need to move beyond the idea

of simply advancing business in other parts of the world. In order to lead the world in structural

engineering we must embrace globalization and immerse ourselves in other cultures. Engineers

who work on projects in other parts of the world should speak the language and understand the

people they serve.

We start by advancing an initiative to have multilingual engineers and we may be able to realize

that goal through educational reforms. We extend by engaging in exchange programs that instill

an understanding of culture, professional practice, legal and contractual standards, and the

realities of the construction industry in foreign locations. We complete by becoming fully

comfortable working on projects on the other side of the world.

Think globally, act globally.

Be global leaders in structural engineering. The route to the future for leadership in structural

engineering is through creativity and innovation, not through labor. The leader in creativity will

lead all others in defining and advancing the profession throughout the world.

In order to set the international model for structural engineering we must lead the way towardinnovation. Among the many possibilities to lead we can have the best structural engineering

research and develop in university and private laboratories, vigorously pursue performance-

based design as the predominant framework for structural engineering, develop and advance of

codes and standards that are emulated across the globe, seek ways to positively impact

developing nations through structural engineering, and define the role of the structural engineer

in developing sustainable infrastructure.


25/46


25

SEI members will function in the global market for so long as we are leaders in the ability to

develop and implement the standards and technology that leads the world. That requires

mastery and leadership of both. Researchers and engineers associated with SEI presently are

among the best in the world. As such, we are uniquely positioned to be the leaders in the

development of standards, codes, and practice. In fact, many ASCE and SEI documents presently

set the standard for world practice.

We can continue our leadership role into the future, but many regions of the world now look to

our counterparts from other developed professional societies for guidance on structural design.

This has been the case for a very long time, and will continue. In addition, as new regions of the

world elevate to progressive and economically strong societies there will be new competition.

SEI members will remain influential, and extend their influence, by association with a

progressive and productive SEI, and through the promotion of SEI and its products worldwide.

We need to engage the world so everyone understands the value SEI members bring to the

solution of structural engineering problems everywhere.

Think like a world leader, act like a world leader, be a world leader.

Commit to life-long learning and professional advancement. The education and credentials we

acquire during our professional lives are important and meaningful. As we progress through our

careers our roles change and our profession changes. We have a responsibility to stay current

with changes, and to be effective in our changing roles. This requires a commitment to

developing the skills we need to have at all stages of our careers, and to help those that follow

us to develop their skills.

Overlaying the system of formal education and practice of structural engineering are the

mechanisms for licensure and continuing education. Bold changes in education and practice will

need to be met with equally bold efforts relative to licensure and continuing education.

Ongoing efforts by national associations and local structural engineering groups continue to

support changes to structural engineering licensure in a state-by-state fashion. The newly

created Structural Engineering Licensure Coalition (SELC) is a first step in a unified approach to

the disjointed efforts of achieving specialty licensure nationwide. Such an innovative effort by

the profession defines its leadership in this area. But, there is much work to be done and

complementary efforts and successes will be required to realize the Boards Vision and address

the strategic issues defined by this committee.

In the future, all individuals practicing in the field of structural engineering should be licensed as

structural engineers based on the ANSI-approved NCEES Model Law Structural Engineer, which

should include a continuously evolving examination that properly evaluates the skills necessary

to be a structural engineer as those skills evolve.


26/46


26

The demand for continuing education was created by the requirements for licensure renewal

and currently represents a system that is begging for innovative change. The profession has a

real opportunity to define what continuing education will mean relative to structural

engineering licensure and create a thirst for quality continuing education throughout the

profession of structural engineering.

A robust future for the profession also includes deep and authentic mentoring. There was a time

when the development of engineers happened in an apprentice system. Apprentices learned

from masters in a highly personal and interactive exchange. The demand for efficiency has

brought hierarchy in almost all parts of our profession, from the educational domain to the

structure of companies. Today it is difficult for young engineers to learn directly from our most

gifted senior engineers. The cost of missing this connection is enormous and multiplies over the

generations. The structural engineer of the future will have access to the senior members of the

profession because we will value it and we will find innovative new ways to let it happen.

Commit to developing and implementing uniform and meaningful requirements for professional

licensure, continuing education, quality control, and training of the next generation of

engineers.

EDUCATION FOR INNOVATION AND LEADERSHIP

One of the keystone ideas for change in the profession of structural engineering is to change the

way we educate structural engineers. Educational reform in engineering has been wedged in by

many constraintsfrom accreditation procedures to management of a system that includes

community colleges and transfer students. Our surveys showed that most senior engineers in

practice know little of the educational environment beyond their own experience9. The

educational system is far from agile; curricular reform is more like chiseling stone that it is

molding clay. Furthermore, education is seldom acknowledged as a system and hence most

change is piecemeal. To change the outcome we need to change the system.

If we could start from a blank piece of paper today, how would we imagine the ideal education

for structural engineers? Would we create the undergraduate experience we have today?

Would we teach math, physics, and engineering fundamentals in the manner that we currently

do? Would we envision general education as we do currently? Would we align structural

engineering with civil engineering? Would we build graduate programs as we do today? It is notlikely that anyone who is aware of the research on how people learn, the needs of the

profession, or the aspirations of many students would create anything remotely close to what

we have today. Our current system is a product of incremental evolution, founded in the



27/46


27

industrial revolution, refocused on science in the post WWII era, and now weighted down by an

incredible number of constraints.

If anything, engineering education has become far too parochial. The drive to get students

committed to certain branches of engineering as early as possible and to get them ready in four

years has all but eliminated the breadth that we believe is essential for the future of the

profession.

We need to re-envision the formal education of structural engineers. What we propose here is

to embrace the concept that the preparation of engineers is a process that cannot be addressed

by fiddling with certain parts of the system. We need to re-imagine the entire process. This re-

imagination of formal education has three main parts: (1) decouple undergraduate education

from the professional training10

, (2) develop a professional school model with an associated

internship mechanism and a correlated transition to practice, and (3) create a more fluid and

engaged connection between the practice and the academy.

Reform undergraduate education: The discussions about educational reform in engineering

have gone from the faint drumbeat of a few in decades past to an audible noise that is

impacting universities in a way that is harder and harder to ignore. While the trenches of

tradition remain fairly deep, the knowledge of how people learn will soon transform engineering

colleges in the United States. The pressure to generate well-rounded engineers and the cost of

education will drive that effort. The combination of available technology, the high price of

college, and increased awareness of good educational practice is pushing American higher

education to a tipping point.

There are at least two routes forward for the reform of undergraduate engineering education:

one choice could create general engineering programs that aim to provide foundational

preparation and broad education for all engineers, but little parochial professional knowledge;

and a second route could move to a pre-engineering strategy typical of the professional schools

in law and medicine. These approaches represent dramatic change that might allow movement

toward a better overall model for the formal education of engineers. While these concepts are

worthy of consideration by all engineering fields, structural engineering is in a good position to

actually implement these ideas.

If we loosen the coupling between the undergraduate education and the outcome of being a

professional structural engineer, we can create avenues to promote the development of soft

skills, broad knowledge, and skills that will enhance professional ability in ways that we are

simply not able to do under the current constraints. If we improve the technical foundation of

the lower division and exchange parochial professional training in the upper division with a

10The undergraduate degree is not designed to be the primary place for professional training in engineering. Professional training

would include those subjects that are specifically related to professional practice.


28/46


28

broader sort of preparation for additional study, then the undergraduate path to engineering

will be more attractive to more students, a better education for those who follow that path, and

will leave the task of professional education at a preparation level and maturity level that could

significantly enhance the overall outcome of the education.

Create professional schools: The reform of the undergraduate experience for structural

engineers is predicated on the notion that something else follows. We might best image the

next phase to be a professional school model rather than the current graduate school model.

Currently, graduate education in structural engineering is usually built on the traditional civil

engineering degree, with an expectation that students have a background in structural analysis

and design. Much of the graduate education might be characterized as what you learned

before, only more and better.

The professional school model would create new opportunities depending upon how the

entrance requirements were administered. Entrance requirements similar to law school or

medical school would simply articulate a core set of courses required to start (and a standard

exam). If we envisioned structural engineering school in a similar manner we might specify

courses in math and science and possibly even engineering mechanics. That would open the

possibility of many majors leading to structural engineering school. This model opens the door

to a broader group of students to consider the profession.

One might envision admission from any undergraduate degree in engineering. No longer would

civil engineering be the primary route to structural engineering, but so would mechanical,

electrical, aerospace, and others. A far more innovative approach would be to abandon the

traditional undergraduate engineering degrees for a specially designed general engineeringdegree that advanced students through foundational engineering courses, creative design

experiences, and a significant set of liberal arts courses to round out the education11.

The undergraduate degree would be about foundational knowledge and breadth; the

professional school education would be about depth and specific knowledge in structural

engineering. We would no longer need to worry about the adequacy of the few courses

provided in the undergraduate education; they would no longer be viewed as entry-level

professional requirements. The undergraduate degree could be designed as preparatory to a

broad array of professional possibilities. The broader undergraduate degree would serve well as

a preparation for a vast set of outcomes outside of engineering, establishing the liberal arts

education of our technical future.

Coordinate internships: Internships have been a staple opportunity at most engineering schools

for a very long time. Due to the nature of the structural engineering business, structural firms

11There are models currently available that are close to this model, e.g., Olin College.


29/46


29

have played a relatively minor role in the internship universe, and in fact many admit to only

using the process for recruiting.12There is a remarkable lack of communication about the

concept of internships among stakeholders, even though they could function as a very

important part of the educational process. Internship programs are constantly in the process of

being invented (or re-invented) and there is no effective mechanism to share best practices.

We could develop a profession-wide process for the creation and administration of internships

in structural engineering that would make it easier for firms to participate and easier for

students to find opportunities. We could take what is now a very substantial, but quite

dissipated part of our professional universe and make it into something effective, exciting, and

vital to our future.

If you will, imagine a national clearinghouse for structural engineering internships. No individual

school has to create the idea or the infrastructure. No individual school has to hire a

professional in a position with zero upward mobility to manage the local program. No firm hasto invent a concept of internship. No firm is obligated to participate except as laid out in a multi-

year agreement that commits to a number of slots, a threshold of training, and to educational

objectives that are generally acceptable to the academic communitywhich would grant

academic credit for the experience in a uniform way. The national clearing house could also

have bricks and mortar for developing the core skills of students who enter the program (much

like study abroad programs attend to language acquisition and cultural education for students

who will study at a foreign institution). The bricks and mortar might be electronic or a

distributed responsibility of the member universities.

At the core, the program must be an integrated and effective, but narrowly targeted, entity

supported and endorsed by the profession. Students would view the program as essential to

professional development and future employment. The national clearinghouse might also

function as employment agency (similar in effect to how interns are placed in medical schools or

how graduate schools who use the common application process function). The value of the

program would rise and fall on economies of scale and would survive if the outcome hit a target

set by the profession.

A variation on this idea could begin with a nationally-executed internship scholarship program in

which the top 50-100 structural engineering students compete for a spot to participate. These

students could be placed with firms participating in the program and earn a demarcation in a

vein similar to a Rhodes Scholar.

Re-invent the engineer-in-training concept: Currently, engineers enter a period we call

engineer in training after graduation from their formal education. Perhaps it is time to revisit



30/46


30

the concept. Imagine, if you will, a completely new entityneither structural engineering firm

nor university. By analogy with the teaching hospital let us call this new entity the teaching

firmor the practice arm of the universityin the former some senior members of the firm

are trained educators responsible for the development of new engineers, in the latter some of

the faculty are responsible for engaging in the practice of engineering while mentoring their

students in the practice. Either way, the goal would be to provide the education needed by all

new structural engineers that is not currently provided by academic curricula and is not reliably

provided by in the current workplace environment.13

All prospective structural engineers would pass through this system. It would be an opportunity

for development far beyond the academic setting and it would provide a more reliable and

robust education than even the best firms can currently provide. Of course, the logistical tasks

we face in realizing such an entity are enormous. However, it would not be more complicated

than setting up a new university (which has been done, of course, but is not the province of

amateurs). Ultimately, the support of an adequate number of leading firmsat least through

their hiring practiceswould be essential to the survival of such an innovation. The effort might

start as a collaboration of leading structural engineering schools with leading structural

engineering firms.

Faculty in Practice, Practitioners on Faculty: The survey of top practicing engineers reveals that

very few know much about the educational environment beyond their own time at their alma

mater.14By the same token engineering faculty members have grown distant from the practice

of structural engineering because the reward system of university employment does not

encourage the connection.

Some of the innovations described previously create new avenues to reconnect the academy

with practice, and in fact rely on this linkage for success. That connection is vital to the future.

Every opportunity to create pathways across this divide should be explored in our future.

Universities could lead the way by reforming promotion and tenure practices and by employing

practicing professionals in the delivery of engineering education. Professional associations could

pave the way by building the mechanisms for engagement.

SUMMARY

SEI has committed to its vision for the profession. We know where we are and how we have

arrived here. The path forward is ours to decide, should we choose to pursue it. We recognize

the path may change, and progress will need to be shepherded. The SEI Board of Governors will

13We acknowledge that good firms are in the teaching business and that some university programs provide elements of the

education sought here. Rather it is a suggestion that we need to move beyond an ad hoc, haphazard approach to this part of the

education as a profession, if these things are truly important.14



31/46


31

continue to press forward with careful consideration and purposeful initiatives and activities to

achieve this vision.


32/46


32

PART V-Recommendations for SEI Board of Governors Action

This paper asserts that structural engineers of the future will need to be innovators and leaders

to respond to our changing working environment. While much of the evolution of structural

engineering is beyond the influence of SEI, there are certain actions that SEI can take to help

mold the professions future.The following recommendations are starting points that the Board

should implement.

EDUCATION FOR INNOVATION AND LEADERSHIP

Establish a standing committee composed of academics and practitioners withexperience related to the educational process. Charge this committee with developing

and advocating for a fundamentally new system for the undergraduate and professional

education of structural engineers so that new structural engineers are trained in skillsthat support innovation and leadership on the world stage. This change is needed to

position structural engineers of the future to be highly valued partners in the

construction industry world-wide and to be able to blaze new paths as the profession

responds to the changing professional environment.

Establish a committee with like-minded organizations to study the state of continuingeducation for structural engineers; to recommend enhancements that ensure that

providers offer only meaningful, high quality courses for study; and recommend

industry-wide mechanisms and processes to make continuing education consistent and

effective for all structural engineering professionals. This initiative is needed so that

structural engineers develop and maintain the skills necessary for their practice and

keep abreast of changes impacting our profession.

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE FOR INNOVATION AND LEADERSHIP

Promote the structural engineer as a leader and innovator by designating a champion tosolicit authors and speakers for white papers, magazine articles, conference sessions,

public media interaction, and/or other means, to make the case for structural engineers

to broaden their skill sets and to attract persons with new and diverse talents to the

profession. Provide SEI staff to support this effort and facilitate placement ofpublications and presentations. This change is needed so that structural engineers will

acknowledge the need to have new and broader skills to respond to the changing

professional environment, and the public will appreciate the structural engineer's

critical role in society.

Establish the International Activities Division(IAD) with designated support staff withinSEI to advance the role of SEI members on the world stage and facilitate the


33/46


33

development of skills that allow SEI members to thrive in the global market. IAD

activities could include: marketing efforts to promote SEI, its publications, and its

members worldwide; identifying and sponsoring SEI members to serve in prominent

roles at foreign professional meetings and conferences; operating a clearinghouse for

foreign exchange programs for our best and brightest young engineers; establishing

foreign chapters; fostering ways for SEI members to contribute to beneficial

development in disadvantaged societies; and others. This change is needed to broaden

the impact of SEI structural engineers in other cultures, provide opportunities for

education and learning that will benefit the participating engineers and our profession,

and position SEI engineers to compete in the global market.

Promote structural engineering licensure by supporting the Structural EngineeringLicensure Coalition and its mission to advocate for structural engineering licensure in all

jurisdictions. This continuing initiative is needed to promote public safety in the built

environment.

Establish a standing committee to champion performance-based building and bridgedesign codes and standards and the reduction of unnecessary constraint on design. This

committee should be composed of representatives of SEI and other standard-

development organizations to collaborate in the development of codes that focus on

essential standardization, supported by appropriate guidance, rather than complete

regulation. This change is needed to encourage creative thinking to achieve innovative,

cost-efficient, environmentally-sensitive, and sustain

A Vision for the Future of Structural Engineering Oct 16 2013(2)

Documents

Transcript of A Vision for the Future of Structural Engineering Oct 16 2013(2)